Week Eleven: "On the Rights of the Molotov Man"

“On the Rights of the Molotov Man,” an article by Joy Garnett and Susan Meiselas is a very interesting article in that it takes a look at how contextualizing and decontextualizing images can have an effect on their meaning and their representation of the subject included in the photo or image itself. However, I found the copyright infringement aspect of the article to be kind of ridiculous. While I understand that it had been Susan Meiselas original image, taken for a specific reason and with a specific purpose in mind, it was clear to me, from reading Joy Garnett’s portion of the article, that she had not created her painting with any intention of infringing upon Susan’s copyright. Getting the lawyer involved seemed to be going a little far. While I understand that it is important for an artist to protect their work and their creations, I also think the whole idea of copyright has been taken to the point of extremes in the art world, and in other areas of art more so than in the actual graphic arts, and it has gotten to the point where the phrase copyright infringement does not even carry as much weight as it used to.

However, the one part of the article that I found to be incredibly interesting was how artists online around the world stood up and fought for Joy Garnett’s right to use the image in her painting, since she had clearly not intended to infringe on anyone’s copyright by using it. She had simply found it in an internet search and felt inspired. Seeing that kind of backing from an online community is not all that surprising from me, since I, myself, take part in some online discussion communities for the arts and various things, but it was interesting to see how the story got twisted as it was translated from language to language. I think that is one thing that is universally understood… that language barriers can sometimes make things worse without intending to. For instance, the Chinese thought that Pepsi was suing Joy Garnett by the time the news got to them, and eventually, the whole thing was blown way out of proportion.

Though the whole situation did become blown out of proportion, I think that the online support that Garnett received for her painting had a lot to do with Meiselas having her lawyers back off and not going after the licensing fees. There would have been so many backlashes, that at the time, it probably didn’t seem worth pursuing. Even though she did give up on the legal pursuit, I’m glad that this article gave her the opportunity to voice her opinion and give the real background of the “Molotov Man.” His story is fascinating, and it was crazy to see how many different groups had used his image. Pablo Arauz, better known as the “Molotov Man,” had his image spread on flyers for various political parties, had his image put on match books, had his image painted on walls, and all the while, he was raising a family and taking care of the lumber company that he owned. It was not until 1990 that Susan Meiselas even knew the name of the man in the picture she had taken that had caused so much uproar… such a riot, in fact.

I think the most important question raised by this article was brought up by one of the online posters in response to the controversy and battle over copyright and rights in general between Joy Garnett and Susan Meiselas. “Who owns the rights to this man’s struggle?” Neither Garnett or Meiselas knew this man personally, other than Meiselas having witnessed him throwing the Molotov cocktail long enough to snap the photo that would bring her into the spotlight, but nowhere in the article did it mention asking Pablo Arauz’s permission to reproduce images of his likeness. It just seemed like such a trivial matter to me. It wasn’t a battle over art for art’s sake. It was a battle over rights, and ultimately over money for Susan Meiselas, and that kind of goes against everything that the image itself represented, as Arauz fought for political beliefs and freedom from a regime he didn’t believe in. Overall, I just felt like the article raised a lot of interesting questions about art and copyright as it relates to both 2-D and 3-D art.

Week Ten: Brook, "The Rough Theater"

Though the excerpt from the Brook article, “The Rough Theater,” was fairly brief, it contained a lot of interesting information. I had never really thought about the architecture of theater before the article brought up many very interesting points. For instance, a rough theater can be more engaging than a clean cut, incredibly stylized theater performance/showing. While this seems like common sense after thinking about it, I had never really considered that to be true. Raw performances just seem to have more character overall. There is more of a chance for audience interaction with the performers because there is no expectation or uncomfortable urge to sit still and just “enjoy the show” in silence because of clean, seemingly perfect surroundings. In posh, sophisticated settings, audience-performer interaction during a show would be seen as inappropriate and rude, at least in most settings, but if a show is designed to be rather crude and simple, as far as style goes, and the theater itself is more homey and inviting, then a whole new atmosphere opens up and allows for an entirely different viewing experience. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder in this sense, since all of it is merely based on opinions rather than fact.

Brook also brings up an interesting point in the article when there is a reference to prisoners in San Quentin being able to appreciate something as sophisticated as Waiting for Godot from their confinements in prison simply because it is constructed in a more simplified form. If those same prisoners were to go to a fancy, upper class theater in London, England, to see that show or a show of a similar style, then they would be completely lost because it would not be spoken in a language that they could understand, even if it was actually spoken in English. There are so many different levels of the English language that even people who speak the same language can come face to face with a language barrier of sorts.

One of the most interesting aspects of the article is how Brook discusses ways of simplifying stories to get the same effect. In a time where spectacle is more important to the Hollywood blockbuster than story is, for the most part, it was nice to see an analytical mind thinking about ways to simplify theater and get back to basics, in a way. Using flour to show someone white with fear is almost ingenious these days, since it is not even thought about with the use of makeup or even color alteration in post production with computers and other technologies.

Lastly, Brook discusses the idea of viewing shows outside of normal viewing areas as being more enriching than going to the theater or something of the sort. Though Brook is talking more about live theater than movie going, I can relate to what is being said. Outdoor theater allows for more interaction, and incorporating local jokes or slang phrases that more people would relate to is a great way of connecting with the audience. Personally, I think that going to film viewings that take place outdoors or in a setting other than a movie theater, such as a film screening with a projector and a white sheet in some guy’s garage, are more enjoyable at times than just going to see the run of the mill Hollywood blockbuster in a seat with a cup holder in the armrest and sticky candy on the floors. It allows for a nice break from reality in a visual sense, and it’s just a way to get outside of the realm of normalcy for a little while. Overall, it just creates an entirely new viewing experience all together, and I think that was the point that Brook tried to make in “The Rough Theater.”

Week Seven: Double Time

Week seven of class brought about a double dose of 6x1 action. Not only did we meet in class on Monday morning, but we had a film shoot on Saturday that was fairly educational as well. The focus of the week was the one shot that we would be filming on Saturday using the Bolex film cameras provided for us by the school. With only one complete wind worth of film at our disposal, the class was broken up into groups and instructed to come up with a complete idea or action that could take place in front of the lens for one minute while the camera filmed at twelve frames per second before the film was developed, projected and recorded onto a mini DV, and then taken into Final Cut to be slowed down and have a soundtrack added.

While trying to come up with an action to take place in one minute in front of a camera when no dialogue is required sounds like an easy enough task, it actually proved to be quite difficult. Half of Monday’s class was devoted to our groups having time to get together to come up with a concept that would give us some kind of starting point when we showed up to film on Saturday afternoon. My group came up with an initial idea fairly quickly: we would follow one object around as it is passed amongst a group of random people. The next task was coming up with an object and a group of people doing distinct actions that would show up on film without the use of dialogue or actual sound recorded from the shoot.

Our object turned out to be a book. On shooting day, we decided to use On the Road by Jack Kerouac, which seemed oddly appropriate given the journey that the book itself was about to embark upon. Shooting day turned out to be the most interesting day, though. No amount of planning can completely prepare you for what lies ahead. Even though we were broken up into groups, we were teamed with one other group so that we could act as production assistants and actors during their shoots.

It was probably the first and only time that I will have to help remove and replace a balloon head on an actor in the middle of the film, but it was definitely a lot of fun and incredibly creative. After about forty minutes of trying to get the choreography down, since this was to be one seamless take in one shot, we finally got the shot done and it ended up looking really great when it was projected on screen. The balloon head popping was probably my favorite part, and I cannot wait to see what it looks like when it is actually slowed down.

The shoot for my group went by without many problems. It turned out to be a fairly simple concept, once we found the perfect spot to shoot in beneath the clock tower in front of Randall Library. With a path blocked out from one bench to another, then to a picnic table, and back to the original bench, we wound the crank on the Bolex camera and started filming… only to have the camera stop filming at fifty seconds when we needed fifty-six seconds of footage to work with. So, we re-cranked the camera and filmed the last shot over again. When our one shot was projected onto the screen, I was really pleased with the final result, even in the negative form it looked great. I cannot wait to see it edited with a soundtrack, as well as everyone else’s. They should be very entertaining.